2022 RLLR 140

Citation: 2022 RLLR 140
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 13, 2022
Panel: Joseph Berkovits
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tamal Whitfield
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TC0-01092
Associated RPD Number(s): TC0-01121
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

[1]       XXXX (the principal claimant), and her son, XXXX (the minor claimant), citizens of the Bahamas, claim refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (the IRPA).

 

[2]       The principal claimant was the designated representative for the minor claimant.[1]

 

[3]       The panel heard the claims jointly, pursuant to Refugee Protection Division Rule 55.[2]

 

[4]       The panel has considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.[3]

 

DECISION

 

[5]       For the reasons given below, the panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees because they have established that they will face a serious possibility of persecution should they return to the Bahamas.

 

ALLEGATIONS

 

[6]       The claimants allege, in summary, they have been caught in a dangerous domestic environment in the Bahamas. The principal claimant has alleged that both herself and her child have been pursued by ongoing threats and violence by her spouse’s former partner, who has four children with him, and who has continued to be involved in his life.

 

Identity

 

[7]       The claimants’ personal identities as citizens of the Bahamas have been established by certified copies of their passports.

 

[8]       The panel therefore finds that the claimants have established their identities, on a balance of probabilities.

 

Nexus

 

[9]       Given the claimants’ allegations, their claim will be assessed pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, with the nexus being the claimants’ membership in a particular social group: women and their children facing domestic-related violence that is unique to women.

 

Credibility

 

Introduction

 

[10]     When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true, unless there is valid reason to doubt their truthfulness. Hence, as a corollary, there is no general legal requirement for a claimant to corroborate sworn testimony that is uncontradicted and otherwise credible.

 

[11]     In terms of the principal claimant’s general credibility, and in light of the evidence below, the panel has found her to be credible witnesses and the panel therefore accepts what she has alleged in her oral testimony and in her basis of claim form. The panel found her testimony to be credible because there were no major contradictions or omissions that went to the core of her claim, and because her testimony was spontaneous and detailed. Additionally, the panel found her corroborative evidence to be reliable, trustworthy, and as such, the panel assigns it full weight in supporting her credibility in relation to her allegations as well as her allegations as they apply to the minor claimant.

The principal claimant provided credible evidence of how her persona! circumstances led bath herself and the minor claimant to be exposed to persecution

 

[12]     The principal claimant, who is currently 24 years old, testified that she was only 18 or 19 years old when she moved in with the father of the minor claimant, DW,[4] who was some ten years older than her. When her child, the minor claimant was born, she was about 21 years old. The panel accepts as credible the claimant’s evidence that her circumstances in the Bahamas at the time that she started her relationship with DW were challenging. The principal claimant disclosed that her education comprised completing high school and that her only work history was as a XXXX for some three years. The principal claimant detailed how her mother had passed away in 2004, that she was not in contact with her father, and that her only other caregiver, her grandmother, with whom she lived after her mother passed away, also passed away about a year before she moved in with DW. She also testified about how she and her siblings all grew up separately because their mother passed away at such a young age. She also detailed how two out of her three brothers have left the Bahamas, with the third brother only recently returning. The principal claimant also testified, credibly, that the brother who returned to the Bahamas and who was her only remaining close relation in the Bahamas, has too many responsibilities at the time to be in a position to help her, should she and her child return. She also testified that she initially attempted to keep her relationship with DW a secret from her siblings, because she worried what they, as her older brothers, would think of it, and this isolated her. By way of corroboration, the principal claimant’s brother who also attended the hearing to assist her, testified about their difficult family situation, and how they lost their parents at early ages. He also recounted the hardships that the principal claimant had experienced throughout her life by means of a detailed letter.[5]

 

[13]     The principal claimant also testified, credibly, that although her relationship with DW started well, it turned out to be an abusive one, and the panel acknowledges that after her child was born, she was left without many options. As the principal claimant detailed, her personal situation was made more precarious because DW had only recently ended a relationship with another woman, with whom he had lived with for some time previously and had four children with. The panel acknowledges that the principal claimant’s familial and personal situation in the Bahamas likely left her without meaningful family or support mechanisms and this affected her domestic situation, as well as the situation of her child.

The principal claimant gave credible evidence about the nature of the threats that she and her child faced

 

[14]     The panel accepts as credible the principal claimant’s evidence about the initial threats that she experienced from the former partner of her child’s father, DW, which included confrontational visits to their apartment, and the panel recognizes that early into their relationship, her home became an unsafe place for her to reside in. The principal claimant testified, credibly, about how, while she was expecting her child, the former partner of the child’s father reacted in a threatening manner. She testified that she knew that DW’s former partner and her four children had been financially dependent upon him and that she feared how this new relationship would impact upon her and her four children, and this made her blame the principal claimant for her predicament. She testified that she had heard how the former partner, who was from a different settlement which was only ten minutes away, was making threats against her, and telling her own family that she would make the principal claimant’s life a “living hell.” She also testified that she feared the family and neighbours of the former partner, whom she heard came from a violent family which was known to be hostile to people from the principal claimant’s settlement area.

 

[15]     The principal claimant described how these threats escalated by the time that she was four months pregnant, when the former partner came over to the principal claimant’ s home and proceeded to call her by abusive name. The principal claimant testified that she hoped that she could deescalate their situation, but instead the former partner proceeded to physically assault her, putting both herself and her unborn child in danger. According to the principal claimant, she was ultimately able to protect her unborn child by lying on the floor in a particular position, and the assault only ended when the neighbours, who heard what was going on, came in to intercede. The claimant also described how she reported the attack by DW’s former partner to the police, and how they simply told her to “talk it out” with DW and his former partner.

 

[16]     Although the principal claimant did not provide corroborating evidence of this attack or her report of it to the police, the panel understands how it would be difficult to obtain such evidence under the circumstances, and, in any event, the panel accepts her evidence, which was uncontradicted and consistent, as credible. The panel also acknowledges that there is objective evidence of how violence against women is often not taken seriously by state authorities, as will be delineated in the country conditions evidence below. The principal claimant further described how the former partner made further threats, which the panel acknowledges were essentially death threats, against her. The principal claimant also detailed threatening text messages that she received from the former partner, but these stopped when she changed her mobile number. Even though the principal claimant did not provide printouts of these text messages, the panel accepts her evidence about the text messages as credible and understands why it was not likely feasible for the principal claimant to retain these messages. The principal claimant also testified, credibly, that she began to notice how cars were frequently following her, and she feared that this was at DW’s former partner’s direction.

 

[17]     The claimant therefore left the Bahamas for Canada in XXXX 2019, when her child the minor claimant was about three months old. She testified that even though she was still living with DW at the time, she did not feel safe, particularly because she had another altercation with his former partner. She also testified that she felt that she was living under a mentally abusive situation with DW by then, which was only exacerbated by the abuse coming from his former partner. The principal claimant further testified that her partner’s abusive treatment of her was a symptom in large part because of his conflicted feelings over his previous relationship. As such, she testified that she did not tell DW that she was leaving the country at the time, because she could not trust him to support this decision, or even to let her leave. However, the principal claimant did clarify at the hearing, that since coming to Canada, she became aware that DW had also left the Bahamas for Canada and is here on a visitor’s visa, and as noted[6], he retroactively gave his permission for the minor claimant to remain in Canada with the principal claimant. However, the principal claimant testified that DW is not living with her, and that she was not aware of what his long-term plans were or if and when he was going to return to the Bahamas. The panel acknowledges that the uncertainty that the principal claimant and the minor claimant likely face regarding DW’s long-term plans likely add to the unpredictability and instability of their domestic situation, should they return to the Bahamas.

 

[18]     The panel also recognizes how the ongoing threats that the claimants from DW’s former partner were a symptom of the precarious domestic situation that the claimants were living in, and were also a by-product of the abusive situation that the principal claimant found herself in. The panel acknowledges how, as the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Facing Gender-Related Persecution recognizes, the principal claimant, and by extension her child, are facing a persecution that is “often unique to women,” and how the situation she faces, together with the circumstances of her agent of persecution who is also a woman who likely also has experienced a difficult domestic relationship, are rooted in “female-specific experiences.”[7]

 

[19]     The panel therefore finds that the claimants’ evidence of their living conditions and personal circumstances provide credible support to their allegation that were members of a particular social group: women and their children facing gender-related violence.

The claimants have established that they face a serious and forward-looking possibility of persecution

 

[20]     The panel finds that the principal claimant’s former partner, DW, who is also the father of the minor claimant’s father, is also corroborative of their allegations inasmuch as he acknowledges that there a dangerous situation still awaits them should they return, and he specifically mentions his fear that his son the minor claimant could be in danger should he return. In DW’s recent letter of permission for the minor claimant to be in Canada with the principal claimant, he stated that he knew that his “son was in danger and needed to be in a safe place with his mother. My son is in good health and now out of danger. I know during the time it was the best move to make for the safety of my son and I fully agree with it.”[8]

 

[21]     One of the principal claimant’s brothers, who assisted her as an unpaid counsel at the hearing, also testified about how members of different settlements tend to engage in violence against each other, and because DW’s former partner was from another settlement, he feared that the claimants would face ongoing threats as a result. He also testified about how, while he lived in the Bahamas, he knew of how violent the former partner’s family was, and how regretted that he was not living in the Bahamas, where he might have been able to help to protect her. He also expressed his fear that disputes between these two families had a tendency to become violent and potentially fatal, given that the occupants of these settlements that were known to engage in violence with each other. He also testified that these disputes also often also brought in the involvement of criminal gangs. In a letter of support that he wrote for the claimants, he stated, in part, that he was so concerned about the threats that he heard that both his sister and his nephew were experiencing, and “[k]nowing that my sister is living on a small island with no other family members other than her newborn son… I just told her to ‘pack your stuff and I’ll pay for your ticket to come to me.”[9] The panel acknowledges that given the personal situation that the claimants are likely to face should they return to the Bahamas, particularly in light of the fact that the minor claimant’s father may not himself return to the Bahamas, could lead them to be even more vulnerable to danger as a result of their precarious domestic situation, and to harm at the hands of their agent of persecution, who is essentially also a party to the difficult domestic situation experienced by the claimants. The panel also finds that the principal claimant gave credible testimony about how, by the time they left the Bahamas, their domestic situation with DW was so precarious that she no longer felt safe living with him due to what she testified was the mental abuse she suffered from him due to his conflicted position caused by his relationship with his former partner and her children.

 

Conclusion

 

[22]     Therefore, in light of the claimants’ credible evidence, the panel finds that the claimants have established their subjective fear of persecution in the Bahamas on the basis of their membership in a particular social group: women and their children facing domestic-related violence that is unique to women.

 

Objective Evidence

 

[23]     The objective evidence reveals that violence against women is viewed to be a significant, and largely unresolved, problem in the Bahamas. A United Nations report has “listed the Bahamas as one of the three Caribbean countries considered to be among the top ten countries globally recognized as having high rates of rape and sexual violence.”[10] It has been observed that “Violence against women [in the Caribbean] is widespread and normalised. It is estimated that one in three women in the Caribbean will experience domestic violence.”[11] In addition, “Patriarchal attitudes and deep-rooted stereotypes regarding the roles, responsibilities and identities of women and men in Bahamian families continue, including for example the belief that men are breadwinners and women are family caretakers. This stereotype persists despite the high academic and economic achievement of women and leads to unconscious bias and discrimination against women in public and private life. It also perpetuates sex-based inequalities in all areas of life and the normalization of violence against women.”[12] According to one source, “45 per cent of all homicides over the last 20 years [in the Bahamas] could be attributed to domestic violence.”[13]

 

[24]     In a more general sense, objective observers have found the high crime rate to be a significant safety concern in the Bahamas. According to a 2020 report of the United States “Overseas Security Advisory Council,” travelers to the Bahamas should “Exercise increased caution in the Bahamas due to crime…. Crime remains the country’s primary security threat.”[14]

According to one international study, “crime and violence are permeating the social fabric of Bahamian communities…. [T]he data reveals that the most violent crimes, -specifically murder,

rape and armed robbery -have seen steady increases over the last five to ten years. The murder rate has more than doubled in the last 10 years…. The primary victims of murder are young

males (18-25 years old), killed with a firearm as a result of unresolved conflicts and retaliation.”[15] Gang membership in the Bahamas has been observed as being attractive to “youth who feel marginalized from society or disconnected from their extended family until due to the perception that ‘gangs can offer protection, respect within their community, money and a sense of power.”[16] One study has estimated that, as of 2010, some “20,000 individuals belonged to a gang in the Bahamas, the majority of whom were between the ages of 14 and 35.”[17] There are an estimated 46 known gangs in the Bahamas, creating an “‘active gang scene’ in the Bahamas that is ‘comprised mainly of low-level street gangs’ that engage in activities such as drug trafficking, human trafficking and arms smuggling.”[18]

 

[25]     The panel therefore finds that there is an objective basis for the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution on the basis of their exposure to the ongoing prospect of threats and violence at the hands of their agent of persecution that are rooted in domestic situations that are unique to women. Therefore, the panel finds that the claimants’ fear of persecution is well-founded.

 

State Protection

 

[26]     The claimants have established that their efforts to have the violence they were facing violence addressed by the police did not result in their concerns being taken seriously. Objective observers have “noted that crimes, including violence against women and girls, were often met with a lack of accountability and appropriate remedies, and practices that re-victimized those who made complaints. The US State Department Human Rights Report on the Bahamas noted that among the main concerns were police abuse and challenges within the judicial system evident in delays in trial and witness intimidation; all of this directly affects reporting by victims of violence, impedes effective remedies and accountability, and places doubt rather confidence in the system.”[19] “In addition to underreporting by victims interlocutors suggested that violence against women was generally not seen as [a] priority or as a serious concern unless the crime was excessively gruesome and/or involved a child victim.”[20] Indeed, “some women’s rights groups have noted a hesitancy from law officials to intervene in domestic disputes.”[21] Furthermore, “Barriers faced by those who .. wish to report a rape case include discriminatory attitudes towards women and girls from law enforcement officials due to a culture of disbelief, victim blaming, as well as low conviction rates, the large number of cases that remain unsolved and/or perpetrators never being identified.”[22]

 

[27]     In a more general sense, the state has not been observed to be successful at bringing charges against suspected criminals, or in successfully convicting them. “Since the beginning of 2010, it has been reported that the average clearance rate [percentage of cases where charges are laid][23] has been 61 percent for murder cases and 40 percent for rape cases.”[24] International observers have noted that the “inability of the OAG [the Office of the Attorney General] and the judiciary to expeditiously prosecute criminal cases has led to both a lack of faith in the rule of law and extreme prison overcrowding.”[25] Furthermore, “Many criminal cases remain among an ever-increasing backlog and a diminishing number of convictions … Of the small percentage of cases that went to trial, 42 percent resulted in convictions, 29 percent in not guilty verdicts, and 29 percent were dismissed (due to mistrial or lack of evidence, among other reasons…. [O]nly

5.1 percent of murder cases resulted in convictions.”[26]

 

[28]     In light of the objective evidence of the poor rate of charges and convictions for violent crimes and violent domestic crimes, and of the inability of the state and of the police to adequately protect victims of violence, particularly female victims, as well as the state’s inability to effectively violent crime in general, the panel finds that, should the claimants return to the Bahamas, adequate state protection will not be available to them. As such, the panel finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection.

 

Internal Flight Alternative

 

[29]     The test to be applied in determining whether there is a viable internal flight alternative is two-pronged.[27]

 

[30]     Firstly, the panel must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in the proposed internal flight alternative location, or, on a balance of probabilities, there is no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed internal flight alternative location. This part of the test is commonly known as the “safety prong.”

 

[31]     Secondly, the conditions in the proposed internal flight alternative location must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there. This part of the test is commonly known as the “reasonableness prong.”

 

[32]     Both of these prongs must be satisfied for a finding that the claimants have a viable internal flight alternative.

 

[33]     In light of the claimants’ evidence, as well as the objective evidence of country conditions, including the inadequacy of state protection, the panel finds that test for a viable internal flight alternative fails on the first prong.

 

[34]     The Bahamas is a geographically small country, totalling 10,010 square kilometers of land, and, for comparison purposes, it is slightly smaller than the U.S. state of Connecticut.[28] Although the country consists of a chain of islands, the population of the Bahamas is heavily urbanized, comprising 83.2% of its inhabitants, with two thirds of the Bahamian people living on New Providence Island, where Nassau is located.[29] Given the small size of the country and the heavy concentration of its population, the panel is left with few viable internal flight options to consider. The principal claimant gave credible evidence of how their agent of harm has continuously monitored the claimants, given that she too is essentially a member of their extended family via her status as the mother of four children of the principal claimant’s former spouse. The principal claimant’ s brother also corroborated how the families of the former spouse as well as their own family were well-known to the other and were prone to resolving their disputes with violence, possibly with the assistance of gangs. In light of these circumstances, the panel finds that the claimants’ agent of persecution likely has the means to locate the claimants throughout the Bahamas, particularly in light of their credible evidence that she has a family known for its violent members and who are therefore likely to assist her. In contrast, the claimants have very few relatives remaining in the Bahamas to assist them, apart from one brother who as the principal claimant testified, credibly, was not likely to provide any support for her because he is experiencing problems of his own.

 

[35]     The panel also finds that the claimant’s agent of persecution likely has the motivation to find them, given the principal claimant’ s, as well as her brother’ s credible testimony about how DW’s former partner likely still harbours ill feelings over the claimant’s supplanting her own relationship with DW, and in light of the claimant’s credible evidence ofhow she, as the mother of four children, likely finds herself motivated by revenge due to the precarious personal and financial situation she likely faces as a result of her break-up with DW. DW himself also stated in his letter of permission for the minor claimant to remain in Canada that he was concemed for his son’s safety,[30] and the panel finds that this, too, corroborates the claimants’ allegations that his former partner likely still poses a threat to not only the principal claimant but to the minor claimant as well.

 

[36]     Therefore, the panel is not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture or, on a balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution in an internal flight alternative location.

 

[37]     As such, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimants in their particular circumstances throughout the Bahamas.

 

CONCLUSION

 

[38]     Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants will face a serious possibility of persecution in the Bahamas pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, should they return to the Bahamas.

 

[39]     Their claims for protection are therefore accepted.

 

(signed) Joseph Berkovits

 

May 13, 2022

 

 

 

[1] The principal claimant provided a letter from the minor claimant’s father, dated March 22, 2022, to be found at Exhibit 6, Claimant Disclosure, whereby he grants his permission to her to have brought him to Canada with her, and states, in part, that “My son was in danger and needed to be in a safe place with his mother. My son was in danger and needed to be in a safe place with his mother. My son is in good health and now out of danger. I know during the time it was the best move to make for the safety of my son and I fully agree with it.”

 

[2] Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/212-256

 

[3] Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996.

 

[4] The names of all third parties have been redacted to their initials for privacy and safety reasons.

 

[5] Exhibit 5, Claimant Disclosure, Letter written by a brother of the principal claimant, dated February 17, 2022, pp. 1-2.

 

[6] See Note 1, above.

 

[7] Chairperson’s Guideline, cited above, Section B, “Assessing the Feared Harm: Considerations,” np.

 

[8] Exhibit 6, Claimant Disclosure, letter of permission by the minor claimant’s father, dated March 22, 2022

 

[9] Exhibit 5, Claimant Disclosure, Letter written by a brother of the principal claimant, dated February 17, 2022, pp. 1-2.

 

[10] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 5.3, p. 3,

 

[11] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021) Item 5.3, p. 13

 

[12] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 5.3, p. 15.

 

[13] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 5.3, p. 18.

 

[14] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.2., p. 1.

 

[15] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.6, p. 10.

 

[16] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.5, p. 1.

 

[17] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.5, p. 2.

 

[18] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.7, pp. 1-2.

 

[19] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 5.3, p. 21.

 

[20] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 5.3 pp. 20-21.

 

[21] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 5.8, p. 4.

 

[22] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 5.8, p. 5.

 

[23] “Clearance rate” is not explained in the article cited. In case clarification is needed, a “clearance rate” is defined in Wikipedia as being calculated by dividing the number of crimes that are ‘cleared’ (a charge being laid) by the total number of crimes recorded.” Wikipedia, “Clearance rate,” retrieved January 11, 2022.

 

[24] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.6, p. 45.

 

[25] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.6, p. 48.

 

[26] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 7.6, p. 48.

 

[27] Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).

 

[28] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 1.2, p. 2.

 

[29] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Bahamas, (April 30, 2021), Item 1.2, p. 4.

 

[30] Exhibit 6, Claimant Disclosure, letter of permission by the minor claimant’s father, dated March 22, 2022